DCT

1:19-cv-00819

Neodron Ltd v. Microsoft Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Neodron Ltd. (Ireland)
- Defendant: Dell Technologies, Inc. (Delaware, with principal place of business in Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00819, W.D. Tex., 08/29/2019
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas and maintains its headquarters, a regular and established place of business, within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Dell Latitude 7389 laptop computer infringes six patents related to the design, construction, and operation of capacitive touchscreen sensors.
Technical Context: The patents address various aspects of capacitive touchscreen technology, including methods for resolving ambiguous user inputs, differentiating between finger and stylus touches, and specific physical electrode layouts.
Key Procedural History: The operative complaint is an Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-07-12	U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286 Priority Date
2005-07-08	U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 Priority Date
2006-10-20	U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547 Priority Date
2008-04-10	U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960 Priority Date
2009-07-07	U.S. Patent No. 8,451,237 Priority Date
2010-04-16	U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574 Priority Date
2010-10-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 Issued
2012-01-24	U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286 Issued
2013-05-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,451,237 Issued
2013-08-06	U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547 Issued
2015-02-03	U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574 Issued
2018-10-02	U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960 Issued
2019-08-29	Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286 - Capacitive Keyboard with Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity

Issued January 24, 2012

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses "keying ambiguity" on compact capacitive keyboards where a user's finger is large enough to activate multiple adjacent keys simultaneously, potentially leading to incorrect input. (’286 Patent, col. 1:24-46).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an iterative method for resolving this ambiguity. The system measures the signal strength from each key, identifies the key with the maximum signal as the user's intended selection, and maintains that selection. The selection is only released if one of two conditions is met: either the selected key's signal strength falls below a set threshold, or a different key's signal strength exceeds that of the currently selected key. (’286 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-15). This "non-locking" approach allows a user to slide their finger from one key to another and have the system correctly register the new selection.
Technical Importance: This method provides a more robust and intuitive user experience on small-form-factor devices, where physical key separation is minimal. (’286 Patent, col. 1:30-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶15).
The essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A method of removing keying ambiguity from a keyboard comprising an array of keys;
- measuring a signal strength associated with each key in the array;
- comparing the measured signal strengths to find a maximum;
- determining that the key having the maximum signal strength is the unique user-selected key; and
- maintaining that selection until either the initially selected key's signal strength drops below a threshold level or a second key's signal strength exceeds the first key's signal strength.
The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-24. (Compl. ¶13).

U.S. Patent No. 8,451,237 - Sensitivity Control as a Function of Touch Shape

Issued May 28, 2013

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: Touchscreens that accept input from both fingers and styluses face a challenge: a finger produces a large, strong signal, while a passive stylus produces a small, weak one. A single sensitivity threshold may be too high to detect the stylus or too low to filter out noise when a finger is used. (’237 Patent, col. 1:8-14).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that analyzes the "shape" of the touch signature detected by the sensor nodes. A finger touch typically creates a strong central peak surrounded by a weaker "halo," while a stylus creates a smaller, sharper peak with little or no halo. (’237 Patent, Figs. 2-4; col. 2:63-67). Based on this shape analysis, the controller determines the touch type and enters a corresponding "detect mode" with an appropriate sensitivity threshold for subsequent measurements. (’237 Patent, Abstract).
Technical Importance: This allows a device to dynamically adjust its sensitivity to reliably detect inputs from different objects (like fingers and styluses) without requiring manual mode switching from the user. (’237 Patent, col. 1:37-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claim 16. (Compl. ¶23).
The essential elements of claim 16 include:
- A system comprising a touchscreen with a plurality of sensor nodes;
- a controller configured to receive signals from the nodes;
- determine, using a first detection threshold, whether the signals are representative of a finger touch or a stylus touch; and
- enter a detect mode based on the determined touch type, where the detect mode uses a second, lower threshold for interpreting subsequent touches.
The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 1-15 and 17-24. (Compl. ¶21).

U.S. Patent No. 8,502,547 - Capacitive Sensor

Issued August 6, 2013

The Invention Explained

This patent describes a capacitive sensor, such as a rotary or linear slider, that can operate in two modes. A first "coarse" mode maps a full range of parameter values to the sensor. A second "zoom" or "fine" mode, which may be triggered by a prolonged touch or specific gesture, maps a smaller subset of that range to the same sensor, allowing for more precise adjustments. (’547 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-13).

Asserted Claims and Accused Features

Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶31).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the touchscreen of the Dell Latitude 7389. (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 8,946,574 - Two-Layer Sensor Stack

Issued February 3, 2015

The Invention Explained

This patent relates to the physical construction of a touch sensor. It describes a two-layer stack-up where drive and sense electrodes are formed from a conductive mesh of a material like metal, rather than a solid layer of a transparent conductor like Indium Tin Oxide (ITO). The claims detail the arrangement of substrates, optically clear adhesive (OCA) layers, and a display. (’574 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:49-56).

Asserted Claims and Accused Features

Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶39).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the physical construction of the touchscreen sensor in the Dell Latitude 7389. (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 10,088,960 - Sensor Stack with Opposing Electrodes

Issued October 2, 2018

The Invention Explained

This patent describes a touch sensor architecture with drive and sense electrodes on different planes. The invention focuses on an electrode pattern where some electrodes are actively driven while intermediate electrodes are connected to them via resistive elements, creating a voltage gradient that allows for an interpolating effect and a scalable sensor design. (’960 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-25).

Asserted Claims and Accused Features

Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶47).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the electrode pattern and sensor design of the Dell Latitude 7389's touchscreen. (Compl. ¶45).

U.S. Patent No. 7,821,502 - Two-Dimensional Position Sensor

Issued October 26, 2010

The Invention Explained

This patent discloses a capacitive sensor design where both row and column electrodes are patterned on a single surface, avoiding the need for a second conductive layer. To connect row segments that are broken by column "spines," the invention uses "wrap-around" electrical connections routed outside the main sensing area, which simplifies manufacturing. (’502 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-44).

Asserted Claims and Accused Features

Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶55).
Accused Features: The complaint accuses the electrode pattern and construction of the Dell Latitude 7389's touchscreen. (Compl. ¶53).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as certain products made or sold by Defendant, with the Dell Latitude 7389 laptop computer cited as a representative example. (Compl. ¶13, ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint focuses on the touchscreen functionality of the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶1). It alleges that this technology is "ubiquitous and important" in modern electronic devices like notebooks. (Compl. ¶2). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the Dell Latitude 7389's touchscreen beyond the allegations that it practices the asserted patents.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that claim charts are attached as exhibits comparing the asserted claims to the representative Accused Product. (Compl. ¶15, ¶23). As these exhibits are not included with the complaint document, a prose summary of the infringement theories is provided below.

’286 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Dell Latitude 7389, when processing input from its touchscreen keyboard, infringes claim 1 of the ’286 patent. (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The narrative infringement theory suggests that the accused device employs a method to resolve ambiguous touches (where a finger contacts multiple virtual keys) that involves identifying the key with the strongest signal and maintaining that selection until either the signal drops below a threshold or a different key's signal becomes stronger.

’237 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Dell Latitude 7389's touchscreen system infringes claim 16 of the ’237 patent. (Compl. ¶21, ¶23). The narrative infringement theory suggests that the device can determine whether a touch comes from a finger or a stylus based on the signals received from its sensor array. Based on this determination, it allegedly enters a specific operational mode with an adjusted sensitivity threshold appropriate for that type of input.

Identified Points of Contention

Technical Questions: A central question for the '286 patent will be whether the accused device's software performs the specific two-part "maintaining that selection until..." logic required by claim 1. The complaint does not provide evidence distinguishing this claimed "non-locking" method from a simpler process that might merely select the key with the maximum signal strength at every measurement interval. For the '237 patent, a key question is what technical method the accused device uses to differentiate input types. Does it analyze the "touch shape" as described in the patent's specification, or does it employ an alternative method that may fall outside the claim's scope?
Scope Questions: For the '237 patent, a potential dispute may arise over the scope of the term "determine...whether the received signals are representative of a finger touch or a stylus touch." The question for the court may be whether this term, in the context of the patent, is limited to the "touch shape" analysis detailed in the specification or if it can be read more broadly to cover any method of distinguishing between the two input types based on sensor signals.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’286 Patent: "maintaining that selection until... a second key's signal strength exceeds the first key's signal strength"

Context and Importance: This phrase defines the "non-locking" aspect of the claimed method. Its construction is critical because it distinguishes the invention from a simple "always select maximum signal" algorithm. The dispute will likely center on whether "maintaining" requires a stateful logic that persists across measurement cycles, only to be broken by one of the two specified conditions.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the plain language simply describes the event that causes a change in selection (i.e., the selection is 'maintained' up to the point a new key's signal is stronger).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an "iterative method" and a "winning process," which suggests a stateful operation where a key, once selected, retains that status until an explicit condition is met. (’286 Patent, col. 2:9-15; Abstract). This could support a narrower construction that excludes stateless, "pick-max-signal" systems.

Term from the ’237 Patent: "determine... whether the received signals are representative of a finger touch or a stylus touch"

Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as it defines the required act of differentiating input types. The key question will be what methods of determination are covered by the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the plain language covers any technical means of distinguishing a finger from a stylus based on the signals from the sensor nodes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled Sensitivity Control as a Function of Touch Shape, and the specification repeatedly describes the determination process as an analysis of the touch signature's shape (e.g., center peak versus halo). (’237 Patent, col. 1:1-4; col. 2:63-3:14). This may support a narrower construction limiting the claim to methods that involve such shape analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis alleged is that Defendant provides "user manuals and online instruction materials" that encourage and instruct customers to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes. (Compl. ¶14, ¶22, ¶30, ¶38, ¶46, ¶54).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, for each count of induced infringement, it alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the asserted patent and the infringing nature of its products "Through the filing and service of this Complaint." (Compl. ¶14, ¶22, ¶30, ¶38, ¶46, ¶54). This establishes a basis for potential post-suit enhancement of damages.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

A question of technical evidence: Does the accused Dell Latitude 7389 laptop actually practice the specific technologies claimed? For the software-oriented claims (e.g., in the ’286 and ’237 patents), this will require an examination of the device's source code and operating algorithms to determine if they perform the exact logical steps recited, such as the "non-locking" release condition or the "touch shape" analysis. For the hardware-oriented claims (e.g., in the ’574, ’960, and ’502 patents), this will involve a physical analysis of the touchscreen's construction to see if it embodies the claimed electrode patterns and material stack-ups.
A question of claim construction: Can the patent claims be interpreted broadly enough to cover the accused device's implementation? For example, with respect to the ’237 patent, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: is the claim term requiring the system to "determine" the input type limited by the specification to the described "touch shape" analysis, or can it be construed to cover any method of distinguishing a finger from a stylus based on sensor data? The outcome of such claim construction disputes may be determinative of infringement.